That'd probably do it - Italy came in when the Battle of France was almost over and they could go "yeah yeah we helped", if it's taking longer and/or more Germans are being killed they might decide "maybe see if we can say we helped with Britain".
That'd probably do it - Italy came in when the Battle of France was almost over and they could go "yeah yeah we helped", if it's taking longer and/or more Germans are being killed they might decide "maybe see if we can say we helped with Britain".
A neutral fascist state is plausible - it happened with Spain - but he's correct that the Italian fascists had a big list of stuff they wanted and from their POV this is the best time to try it because Hitler's winning. So a neutral Italy would most likely be one that isn't as sure where this war's going, something's happened to make them think it's not a sure bet.
Personally I am convinced a neutral Italy means a victorious Axis.
Sorry for the late reply, but the big difference between Italy and Spain is that the former was a great power, albeit the weakest one. In addition, Italy had already alienated France and the UK with the conquest of Ethiopia and had already passed anti-Semitic laws. I do wonder if, by that point, Italy was just too close to Germany and too alienated from the Allies to stay neutral.
Nobody particularly pulled any hairs about the anti-Semitic laws I'm afraid, certainly not enough to declare war or make Italy have a hard time.
Which is just as well because Italy didn't put all that much effort into enforcing them. It was 43 when the Jewish deaths really ramped up in Italy and Italian occupied territory. Though other minorities did go through the wringer.
Like... how?
The mythos that Germany delaying Barbarossa to help out Italy lost them the war?
The mythos that Italy did nothing but bumble for no cost (because oh boy lets dig out how fucked Imperial trade was without free access to the Med)
The mythos that propping up Mussolini in 43/44 diverted war winning amount of resources just when Germany needed it?
Has the scholarship on Barbarossa remained in line with van Creveld et al since he published in 1973?The delay was real because of the Balkan Campaign (The weather argument has largely been debunked as Halder mythos), but my main viewpoint on this comes from the Balkan campaign directly causing the cancellation of the planned double envelopment in March of 1941 by AGS of Soviet forces in the Ukraine because 12th Army was diverted. This laid the framework for the issues around Smolensk as well as set the stage for the Kiev or Moscow debate of August, 1941. Martin van Creveld and others have argued basically exactly what I am saying too.
Has the scholarship on Barbarossa remained in line with van Creveld et al since he published in 1973?
Italy signed the Pact of Steel on 22 May 1939. Thus, do you think that by the Battle of France, it's too late for a neutral Italy?No more than they considered the USSR pre-Barbarossa neutral, I'd imagine.
He's already declared he's not really neutral. Non-belligerence was taken by pretty much everybody to mean, "we're not fighting yet", as opposed to neutrality, which is "we're not fighting".Italy signed the Pact of Steel on 22 May 1939. Thus, do you think that by the Battle of France, it's too late for a neutral Italy?
No more than they considered the USSR pre-Barbarossa neutral, I'd imagine.
He's already declared he's not really neutral. Non-belligerence was taken by pretty much everybody to mean, "we're not fighting yet", as opposed to neutrality, which is "we're not fighting".
General Wavell likened it to Mussolini climbing up the high diving board. "I think he must do something. If he cannot make a graceful dive, he will at least have to jump in somehow; he can hardly put on his dressing-gown and walk down the stairs again."
They'd be mad to do so. They've got too much on their plate already. But Benny has made it clear: he's joining. Its just a matter of when. There'd need to be some indication of a much longer war to persuade him to blink.Would the Allies have invaded Italy if it did not engage in fighting?
Would the Allies have invaded Italy if it did not engage in fighting?